On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andy@tensixtyone.com">andy@tensixtyone.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
When Microsoft are spreading the FUD at retail level, how can Linux<br>
defend itself? Jo public is looking at the "experts" at retail stores to<br>
direct their purchases, we've already seen this happen with the fight<br>
over Linux vs. Windows netbooks.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Andrew Williams</font><br></blockquote><div><br>I read this yesterday and it's pretty sickening. They're saying that Windows is more secure than Linux because it gets regular security updates. Regular?! Once a month on patch Tuesday, really regular that. Most Linux distros get almost daily updates. They also seem to argue it's more secure because there are anti-virus & malware products available for Windows from large vendors. Completely ignoring the fact you don't need those things on Linux. They are still available if you want them, ClamAV etc.<br>
<br>It's not hard to see why the "experts" in most shops are so full of shit with training programs like this. The whole "take our brainwashing course and get a cheap copy of Windows" approach bothers me as well. Typical MS buying people off with bribes and spreading their misinformation. <br>
<br>I'm glad someone brought this to light. How much else is out there that we don't know about though? The mind boggles.<br><br>Dan<br></div></div>